Committee Against Torture, Consideration of reports submitted
by States Parties under article 19 of the Convention, Israel,
U.N. Doc. CAT/C/33/Add.3 (1998).

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE
19 OF THE CONVENTION

Second periodic reports of States parties due in 1996*

Addendum

ISRAEL[26 February 1998]

* The initial report submitted by the Government of Israel is contained
in document CAT/C/16/Add.4; for its consideration by the Committee,
see documents CAT/C/SR.183 and 184 and Official Records of the
General Assembly, Forty-ninth session, Supplement No. 44 (A/49/44,
paras. 159-171). For the special report, see CAT/C/33/Add.2/Rev.1;
for its consideration, see CAT/C/SR.295, 296 and 297/Add.1 and Official
Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-second session, Supplement
No. 44 (A/52/44, paras. 253-260).

Introduction

1. This report
is submitted pursuant to article 19 of the Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which
entered into force with regard to Israel on 2 November 1991.

2. The present
report supplements the initial report submitted by Israel in 1994
(CAT/C/16/Add.4) and the report submitted in 1996 (CAT/C/33/Add.2/Rev.1).
Thus, for a comprehensive review it should be read in conjunction
with those reports.

3. The report
is divided according to the articles of the Convention. Since article
16 of the Convention widens its scope to also include a prohibition
on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the discussion
under each article should be construed as covering both torture and
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

INFORMATION ON NEW MEASURES AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS RELATING
TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION

Article 2 - Measures to prevent torture

Legislative
measures bearing on the prohibition of torture and of cruel,inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment

Basic
Law: Human Dignity and Liberty

4. In 1992,
the Israeli Knesset enacted the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.
The fundamental rights guaranteed in that basic law not only form
the basis for interpretation of previous legislation and the limiting
criteria for new laws; in addition, the Basic Law has itself stimulated
numerous legislative efforts, in areas such as arrest and detention,
searches and seizures, emergency legislation, privacy, imprisonment
for civil debts, and the rights of patients, which aim to give the
fullest practical realization of the principles embodied in the Basic
Law.

5. Section
2 of Basic Law: Human Liberty and Dignity, which prohibits any "violation
of the life, body or dignity of any person as such", and section 4
of the Basic Law, which grants all persons the right to protection
against such violations, have constitutional status in Israel's legislative
framework. The Supreme Court arguably has the power to void any legislation
enacted after the entry into force of the Basic Law which violates
the above provisions; previously enacted laws may not be deemed void
by the Court for this reason, but they will be interpreted in accordance
with the fundamental principles of the sanctity of life, integrity
of the body and primacy of human dignity, broadly construed. These
provisions in the Basic Law, then, may be deemed to constitute a general
prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
including torture, and are binding both vis-à-vis public and private
entities.

General
Security Service Bill

6. The functions,
powers and structure of the General Security Service (GSS) have, to
date, not been determined in any law but solely, and partially, in
government decisions. Over the years, a process has developed of giving
expression in legislation to various powers of the GSS - for example,
in the Secret Monitoring Law, 5739-1979, in the Criminal Record and
Rehabilitation Law, 5741-1981, in the Privacy Protection Law, 5741-1981,
in the Equal Opportunities in the Workplace Law, 5748-1988, and others.
However, all of these concern only piecemeal arrangements in specific
areas. The status, structure, functions and powers of the GSS and
the modes of supervision over its activity have not as yet been given
an overall arrangement in legislation.

7. This does
not mean, of course, that the GSS exists and acts outside the law.
It is a division in the Office of the Prime Minister, and the legal
basis for its activity, in those areas that have not been set out
in legislation, is found in government decisions, by virtue of "the
general powers of government" granted to it in accordance with section
40 of Basic Law: The Government, and subject to the legal constraints
on the exercise of such powers (see H.C.J. 5128/94, Federmanv.Minister of Police, 48(5) P.D. 647, 651-654).

8. Over the
last few decades there has been a growing international trend towards
setting out, in legislation, the activities of the various secret
services, and several countries have enacted laws in this area. The
proposed law is intended to fill the gap in Israeli law in all matters
related to the structure, purpose, functions and powers of the GSS,
as well as scrutiny over its activities.

9. Because
the GSS activity is, by definition, classified and protected, the
efficacy of normal mechanisms of control, deterrence and balance that
exist in a democratic society to guard against governmental arbitrariness
and abuse of its power, such as a free press, parliamentary supervision,
public opinion and judicial review, is severely limited with regard
to such organizations. It is thus particularly important to create
effective institutionalized arrangements and mechanisms for scrutiny,
control and review of the activity of the GSS. This is achieved in
the bill by a range of provisions and mechanisms.

10. Under
the proposed law, the GSS will be subject to the authority of the
Government, in a manner similar to the Israel Defence Forces as set
out in Basic Law: The Army. The Government will appoint the Head of
the GSS, on the proposal of the Prime Minister. The Government will
approve the objectives of the GSS's activity, and will establish various
directives regarding the fulfilment of its functions, in accordance
with and subject to the provisions of the proposed law, which also
include parliamentary oversight.

11. The Prime
Minister is responsible for the GSS on behalf of the Government. To
this end he or she has been given various powers in the proposed law,
including the authority to promulgate regulations and rules, with
the approval of the Ministerial Committee for Service Affairs and
the Knesset Committee for Service Affairs, in all matters relating
to the implementation of the law. The Prime Minister is also the person
who will approve GSS Directives determined by the head of the GSS.

12. Under
the proposed law, the Government has to appoint a special Ministerial
Committee for Service Affairs, headed by the Prime Minister, which
will act in the name of the Government in matters which the Government
will determine. The law also prescribes provisions for the composition
of the Committee, to ensure that it will remain compact and businesslike.

13. The Committee
will have various functions, in particular with respect to scrutiny
and oversight of the GSS's activity. It is empowered to approve regulations
and rules in respect of the implementation of the law. It is also
entitled to receive periodic reports from the head of the GSS, and
may demand special reports upon request.

14. Under
the proposed law, the Subcommittee for Secret Services of the Knesset
Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee will be established as the "Knesset
Committee for Service Affairs". Regulations and rules for the implementation
of the law require the approval of this Committee. It is also entitled
to receive periodic reports from the head of the GSS.

15. The proposed
law determines, for the first time, the functions and powers of the
GSS. The objective of the GSS consists principally of protecting the
security of the State, its governance and institutions, from the threat
of terrorism, espionage, and other, similar threats. To this end the
task of the GSS is to foil and prevent unlawful activity aimed at
harming the aforementioned objectives. The GSS is also given duties
in the realm of protecting persons, information and sites, security
classification and vetting, settling security procedures for bodies
designated by the Government, gathering and receiving information,
and giving counsel and situation appraisals to the Government and
other bodies which it designates.

16. To carry
out its objectives and functions, the GSS has been given various powers,
including conducting investigations, gathering and receiving information,
powers of arrest and search, and search powers for intelligence purposes.

17. Also,
a service Comptroller, who is not an employee of the GSS, is to be
appointed by the Prime Minister. The Comptroller will be subject to
the provisions of the Internal Audit Law, 5752-1992, with slight modifications.
Among other duties, the Comptroller is to assist the Government and
the Ministerial Committee in fulfilling their various functions, and
may be charged with other functions, including handling inquiries,
complaints and disciplinary complaints against the GSS from the general
public, as well as complaints by GSS employees.

18. In addition,
the GSS will continue to be subject to the scrutiny of the State Comptroller
by virtue of section 9 of the State Comptroller Law [Consolidated
Version], 5718-1958, and of the Division for the Investigation of
Police Misconduct in the Ministry of Justice under chapter 4.2 of
the Police Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971; and also, of course,
to judicial review, first and foremost by the High Court of Justice.

19. The bill
was adopted by the Israeli Government on 2 February 1998. It was then
put on the Knesset table for further consideration.

Proposed
amendment of the Evidence Ordinance

20. The proposed
amendment seeks, inter alia, to bring the Evidence Ordinance
[new Version] in line with Basic Law: Human Liberty and Dignity and
with article 15 of the Convention. It is therefore discussed under
that article.

Other
measures bearing on the problem of torture and of cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment

The
Kremnitzer Committee

21. Following
a report in 1993 by the Comptroller of the Israel Police which examined
the systemic response to acts of violence by police personnel, the
Minister of Police (now renamed the Minister of Internal Security)
appointed a public commission, headed by the former dean of the Law
Faculty at the Hebrew University, Professor Mordecai Kremnitzer, to
propose a plan of action for dealing with the issue. The Kremnitzer
Committee, as it is called, issued its report in June 1994, which
included specific recommendations for the prevention and deterrence
of violence by police officers. These recommendations may be summarized
as follows.

22. Prevention
of police violence should be achieved by:

(a) Improvement
in screening candidates for enlistment;

(b) Involving
more women in detective and fieldwork, so as to "soften" the contact
between the police and citizens;

(d) Placing
emphasis on the responsibility of commanders to transmit the educational
message directly to their charges, and especially regarding the equality
of all persons and the rights of minorities; and

(e) Videotaping
investigations and field operations.

23. The response
to incidents of violence should include:

(a) Distinguishing
between severe violence and the use of force which does not amount
to severe violence; the former cases, according to the committee's
recommendation, should be adjudicated before a specially appointed
Magistrate Court judge. Where there are acts attributed to a police
officer and the officer admits to them, or where there exists unequivocal
evidence against such officer, then dismissal from the Police should
be mandatory;

(b) Any
police officer who is convicted of severe violence should likewise
be dismissed; and

(c) Occurrences
of unlawful use of force which do not amount to severe violence should
be dealt with in disciplinary proceedings or by senior commanding
officers. Repeat occurrences should result in dismissal from the police
force.

24. Following
publication of the Kremnitzer Committee's report, the Israel Police
adopted its recommendations, and the Minister of Police appointed
an oversight committee to ensure their implementation. While the oversight
committee has only recently begun to function actively, the Israel
Police has taken several measures to implement the committee's recommendations,
such as strict screening of candidates for enlistment in the police,
including weighing of sociometric tests indicating capacity for self-control
and interpersonal skills; periodic evaluations of performance; training
workshops in questioning persons who are not designated as criminal
suspects, as well as in prevention of violence, human rights and equality
before the law (some of these workshops were taught by members of
independent human rights groups); giving an annual prize for tolerance
to particular precinct stations; publishing a newsletter on police
ethics; and starting an experimental "community policing" project
in 10 precincts. In addition, the disciplinary desk of the Israel
Police was expanded to a fully-fledged department, with added personnel,
to improve the efficiency and quality of handling disciplinary complaints.

25. The response
of the Israel Police thus far in implementing the recommendations
of the Kremnitzer Report has met with praise from at least one prominent
independent civil rights group.

Public
Defender's Office

26. In 1995,
a national public defender's office was created by legislation. The
major impetus for forming the new department derived from the difficulties
encountered by the courts in appointing experienced criminal attorneys
to represent indigent persons suspected of serious offences. While
it is too early to assess the performance of the new, State-funded
department, it is anticipated that the augmented protection of the
rights of criminal defendants and detainees by a highly trained corps
of criminal defence attorneys will result, among other things, in
a decrease in violent treatment on the part of law enforcement officials.

Article 4 - Criminal Legislation

27. In 1994,
the Penal Law was amended by a revision of the general part, which
sets out the legal principles of Israeli criminal law. This amendment
includes a revision of the provisions relating to attempt, assistance,
encouragement and incitement. These provisions are a matter of particular
importance in cases of physical or psychological abuse. The following
are the relevant provisions of Chapter Five of the Penal Law, entitled
"Derivative Offences" As no official translation of the amendment
is yet available, the above is an unofficial translation.:

"Title One: Attempt

"What
constitutes an attempt

A person attempts
to commit an offence, if he - with intent to commit it - commits
an act that does not only constitute preparation, provided the
offence was not completed.

"Commission of offence
is impossible

For purposes of attempt,
it shall be immaterial that the commission of the offence was
impossible, because of circumstances of which the person who made
the attempt was not aware or in respect of which he was mistaken.

"Special penalty
for attempt

If a provision sets
a mandatory penalty or a minimum penalty for an offence, then
it shall not apply to an attempt to commit that offence.

"Exemption for remorse

If a person attempted
to commit an offence, he shall not bear criminal liability therefor,
if he proved that, of his own free will and out of contrition
- he stopped its commission or substantively contributed to the
prevention of results on which the completion of the offence depends;
however, the aforesaid shall not derogate from his criminal liability
for another completed offence connected to the same act.

"Title Two: Parties to an Offence

"Perpetrator

"(a) 'Perpetrator of
an offence' includes a person who committed the offence jointly
or who committed through another.

"(b) Participants in
the commission of an offence, who perform acts for its commission,
are joint perpetrators, and it is immaterial whether all acts
were performed jointly or some were performed by one person and
some by another.

"(c) A perpetrator
of an offence through another is a person who contributed to the
commission of the act by others who acted as his instrument, the
other person being in one of the following situations, within
their meaning in this Law:

(1) he is a minor
or mentally incompetent;

(2) he lacks control;

(3) he has no
criminal intent;

(4) he misunderstands
the circumstances;

(5) he is under
duress or has a justification.

"(d) for the purposes
of subsection (c), if the offence is conditional on a certain
perpetrator, then the person in question shall be deemed to have
committed that offence even if the condition is only met by the
other person.

"Incitement

If a person causes
another to commit an offence by means of persuasion, encouragement,
demand, cajolery or by means of anything else that constitutes
the application of pressure, then he incites an offence.

"Accessory

If a person does anything,
before an offence or during its commission, to make its commission
possible, to support or protect it, or to prevent the perpetrator
from being taken or the offence or its spoils from being discovered,
or if he contributes in any other way to the creation of conditions
for the commission of the offence, then he is an accessory.

"Penalty of accessory

The penalty for being
an accessory to the commission of an offence shall be half the
penalty determined by legislation for the commission of that offence;
however, if the penalty set is:

(1) the death penalty
or mandatory life imprisonment, then his penalty shall be 20 years'
imprisonment;

(2) life imprisonment,
then his penalty shall be 10 years' imprisonment;

(3) a minimum penalty,
then his penalty shall not be less than half the minimum penalty;

(4) any mandatory
penalty, then it shall be the maximum penalty and half thereof
shall be the minimum penalty.

"Attempted incitement

The penalty for attempting
to incite another to commit an offence shall be half the penalty
for the commission of the offence itself; however, if the penalty
set is:

(1) the death penalty
or mandatory life imprisonment, then his penalty shall be 20 years'
imprisonment;

(2) life imprisonment,
then his penalty shall be 10 years' imprisonment;

(3) a minimum penalty,
then his penalty shall not be less than half the minimum penalty;

(4) any mandatory
penalty, then it shall be the maximum penalty and half thereof
shall be the minimum penalty.

"Exemption for remorse

"(a) If a person was
an accessory or if he incited another to commit an offence, he
shall not bear criminal liability for being an accessory or for
incitement, if he prevented the commission of the offence or its
completion, or if he informed the authorities of the offence in
time, in order to prevent its commission or its completion, or
if - to that end - he acted to the best of his ability in some
other manner; however, the aforesaid shall not derogate from his
criminal liability for another completed offence connected to
the same act.

"(b) For the purposes
of this section, 'authorities' means the Israel Police or any
other body lawfully empowered to prevent the commission or completion
of an offence.

"Other or additional
offence

"(a) If, while committing
an offence, a perpetrator also committed another or an additional
offence, and if, under the circumstances, an ordinary person could
have been aware of the possibility that it would be committed,
then:

(1) the other
joint perpetrators shall also bear liability for it; however,
if the other or additional offence was committed intentionally,
then the other joint perpetrators shall bear liability for
it only as an offence of indifference;

(2) a person who
incited or was an accessory to it shall also bear liability,
as an offence of negligence, if such an offence exists based
on the same facts.

"(b) If the court found
an accused guilty under subsection (a) (1) for an offence for
which there is a mandatory penalty, then it may impose a lighter
penalty on him."

Article 10 - Education and information

Israel
Police

28. The Israel
Police and the Prisons Service maintain thoroughgoing training programmes
for personnel at all levels, in which their obligations regarding
the respect and realization of civil and human rights are taught.
These training programmes take three basic forms: required courses
for all entry-level personnel, and subsequently for all personnel
as a condition prior to promotion in rank; voluntary continuing education
seminars on specific topics, which typically last between several
days and one week; and periodic refresher courses.

29. Required
courses for Israel Police personnel are taught at the National Police
Academy in Shfar'am or at the Senior Officers' College near Netanya.
All police employees must pass a two-month basic training course,
which includes a total of 47 hours of instruction in the areas of
professional ethics, providing service to citizens, police powers,
use of force, unlawful commands, and disciplinary violations.

30. The required
courses for sergeants, captains, and senior staff officers also devote
between 42 to 80 hours to instruction regarding the above matters,
as well as to modules on competence in human relations, conflict resolution,
investigation of police personnel, media in a democracy, citizens'
complaints, family violence, treatment of juvenile offenders, legal
and practical duties deriving from the right to human dignity, and
inculcation of awareness of human rights. In addition, continuing
education courses on specific topics, such as methods of investigation,
arrest and searches, and so on, involve practical instruction in observance
of human rights.

General
Security Service

31. The GSS
conducts courses and seminars at all levels of command and employment.
These courses and seminars aim to instil principles and norms of human
dignity and fundamental rights in employees, both at basic training
and throughout the GSS. Special attention is given to the instruction
of interrogators and their superiors. Particular emphasis is given
to the rule of law and the GSS's commitment to the balance of interests
required by law and by the practice of the courts.

Article 11 - Review of interrogation practices and treatment
of persons subjected to detention and imprisonment

Review
of interrogation practices

32. As explained
under article 2, the Government of Israel recognized the importance
of establishing systems of review of interrogation practices to ensure
that GSS investigators do not violate the guidelines.

The
State Comptroller's Office

33. In 1995,
the State Comptroller's Office completed an examination of the GSS's
investigator's unit during the years 1990-1992. The State Comptroller's
findings, which were submitted to a special subcommittee of the Knesset
State Comptroller Committee, found several instances of deviations
from the Landau Commission's guidelines, and recommended measures
to ensure compliance. The findings themselves have not yet been made
public.

Ministerial
oversight

34. In accordance
with the recommendations of the Landau Commission, a special Ministerial
Committee headed by the Prime Minister was established in 1988 to
review the GSS interrogation guidelines periodically.

35. In April
1993, the Ministerial Committee determined that several changes should
be made in the GSS guidelines. On the basis of the committee's recommendations,
new guidelines were issued to GSS investigators. The new guidelines
clearly stipulate that the need and justification for the use of limited
pressure by investigators must be established in every case, according
to its own special circumstances. The guidelines emphasize that the
use of exceptional methods is intended only for situations in which
vital information is being concealed, and not as a way to humiliate
or mistreat those under investigation. They place a duty on the investigator
to consider whether the means of pressure the use of which is being
contemplated is proportional to the degree of foreseeable danger of
the activity under investigation. Senior GSS staff must approve in
writing the use of measures deemed to constitute moderate physical
pressure, once again on a case-by-case basis, in light of the above
criteria. In any case, it is expressly forbidden to injure or torture
suspects, to deny them food or drink, to refuse permission to use
the bathroom, or to subject the person to extreme temperatures for
prolonged periods.

36. Since
then, the guidelines have been reviewed from time to time by the Ministerial
Committee, in the light of conclusions drawn from recent experience.
The Ministerial Committee also reviews, in real time, specific cases
of persons under investigation who are known to be active members
of the military echelons of terror groups, and with regard to whom
there are grounds to believe that they have knowledge of future terror
attacks in the planning or execution stages.

Judicial
review

37. All complaints
of alleged mistreatment during investigation may be challenged directly
to the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice. Any party
who believes he or she has been wronged - not only the detainees themselves
or their families, but, under the extremely flexible rules of standing
in Israeli law, also virtually any person or group who claims an interest
in legal or humanitarian issues involved - may have its petition heard
by the High Court of Justice within 48 hours of being filed. Over
the past few years several petitions have been filed with the Court
seeking injunctions to forbid the GSS from using any force, or particular
methods of pressure, throughout the investigation. The Court reviews
each of these cases for their compliance with the detailed guidelines,
and often, with the approval of the petitioner or his attorney, hears
sensitive evidence in camera to examine whether the magnitude of foreseeable
or imminent danger, and the grounds for believing that the suspect
actually has vital information which is crucial to preventing such
danger, are sufficiently clear to justify the use of the specific
methods of interrogation in question. Two recent cases may be summarized
briefly as follows.

38. Raaji
Mahmad Saba (HCJ 5304/97) was arrested by the security services on
27 August 1997, on the grounds that he was a member of the armed wing
of Hamas, the Islamic terrorist organization that has been responsible
for many terrorist attacks, including the suicide bomb attacks on
Israeli civilians in recent years.

39. On 14
September, Mr. Saba (through his own counsel) petitioned the Supreme
Court, alleging that he was being subjected to torture during interrogation
(this petition is currently pending before the Supreme Court). That
same day the Supreme Court, in the light of this serious claim, made
an interlocutory order requiring the Attorney-General to respond immediately
to these allegations. In a night sitting on 15 September, counsel
for the Attorney-General replied that no physical means of interrogation
were to be used against the petitioner at this stage. As a result
of this, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, but ordered the
Attorney-General to personally oversee the interrogation process,
in order to ensure that no unlawful forms of interrogation were used.

40. In addition,
Mr. Saba twice petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court against a decision
prohibiting him from meeting with his lawyer. The Supreme Court, having
heard the attorney for the GSS and having received intelligence materials
submitted to it with the consent of the petitioner, decided that the
measure was justifiable on security grounds and in the interests of
the investigation. The prohibition against meeting with his lawyer
was later lifted. Three weeks later, the Supreme Court was again petitioned
by Mr. Saba (through his counsel) who complained that he had once
more been denied the right to meet with his lawyer. On the same day,
the Court also received a notice from the attorney representing the
GSS, stating that the prohibition would cease that night. On the basis
of this notice Mr. Saba's counsel withdrew the petition. The prohibition
was indeed lifted that night. On 18 October, Mr. Saba's interrogation
ceased, since which time he has been held in administrative detention
and is due for release in April 1998.

41. A number
of facts in Mr. Saba's case may be highlighted. Firstly, at no point
has Mr. Saba denied the accusations against himself, namely that he
is a member of the military wing of Hamas, and has himself been involved
in the organization of terrorist attacks. Additionally, while the
GSS admitted that his interrogation was a matter of necessity, since
Mr. Saba was in possession of information that was crucial for the
investigation, to prevent imminent terrorist attacks. In any event,
the measures used were designed to avoid both physical and mental
harm, something that has been verified by several medical examinations
of Mr. Saba. Finally, it should be noted that Mr. Saba has had recourse
to the highest judicial authority in the country which, because of
the seriousness of Mr. Saba's allegations, heard each of his petitions
immediately.

42. It should
be emphasized that the Supreme Court has convened - so far -on three
occasions to hear his petitions and has even instructed (in order
to ensure that there is no doubt that Mr. Saba's basic rights are
being respected) the Attorney-General to personally oversee the course
of Mr. Saba's interrogation.

43. The second
case in point is that of Abd al-Rahman Ismail Ghanimat. Mr. Ghanimat
is accused of being the leader of the Surif terrorist cell, which
was responsible for the killing of tens of Israeli civilians and soldiers.
He has admitted in investigation that he is a member of this cell
and has admitted involvement in the terrorist actions attributed to
it. These actions include the following: shootings on cars driven
by Israelis between November 1995 and July 1996, including gunfire
attacks on 9 December 1995, in which Jonathan Moschitz (44) and his
10-year-old daughter Lior were injured; on 16 January 1996, in which
Oz Tivon, a 28-year-old doctor and Yaniv Shimel, his 21-year-old passenger,
were killed; on 9 June 1996, in which Yaron (26) and Efrat Unger (26),
a married couple, were killed; and on 26 July 1996, in which Uri Monk
(53) was killed together with his 30-year-old son Ze'ev and his 25-year-old
daughter-in-law Rachel. In each of these instances, Mr. Ghanimat was
personally involved.

44. Following
the July murders, the cell changed its modus operandi, deciding to
abduct and murder soldiers. On 9 September 1996, members of the cell
abducted Sharon Edri, a 20-year-old soldier, and within minutes of
taking him, murdered him. The cell attempted further abductions unsuccessfully.

45. On 21
March 1997, members of the cell bombed the Apropos cafe in Tel Aviv
in which three women, Anat Winter-Rosen (31), Yael Gil'ad (32) and
Michal Midan Avrahami (31), were killed and 30 civilians injured.

46. It should
be noted that the uncovering of the Surif terrorist cell in the wake
of the Apropos bombing, and the investigation of various members of
this group, led to the discovery of a large explosive device in the
village of Surif - identical to the one used in the Apropos bombing
and which, according to the investigation conducted into the members
of the cell, was intended for a further attack similar to the Apropos
bombing. Additionally, the body of Sharon Edri, which had been missing
for over six months since his abduction, was located as a result of
the interrogation of members of the Surif cell.

47. Following
the arrest of Mr. Ghanimat and his subsequent confession, his investigators
had reasonable grounds to suspect that he was in possession of additional
information which would have helped in the prevention of further imminent
terrorist attacks. It is clear therefore that the methods of interrogation
used against Mr. Ghanimat were necessary in order to obtain as quickly
as possible information that was essential in uncovering further terrorist
actions, which would have led to the loss of further civilian lives.

48. Concerning
the allegation made by Mr. Ghanimat that he was not permitted to sleep
and was forced to sit for hours with a thick sack over his head, the
attorney for the State argued that because of the urgency of the investigation
and the fact that in the opinion of the GSS, Mr. Ghanimat was in possession
of information vital for the prevention of further terrorist attacks,
the investigation had to be intensive and Mr. Ghanimat was indeed
not permitted to sleep whenever he so desired. Nevertheless, he was
allowed to sleep whenever the requirements of the investigation so
permitted. With regard to the sack covering Mr. Ghanimat's head, this
was only used when he was in the presence of other suspects and was
simply to prevent communication between them.

49. In the
light of the above, it should be clear that urgent steps were necessary
in order to stop further terrorist attacks. In any event, the measures
used could hardly be viewed as forms of torture in any objective sense.

50. At the
end of January, the investigation was concluded and an indictment
was served on Mr. Ghanimat containing several counts, including all
of the incidents recounted above. A remand hearing was held on 8 February
and the next hearing is due for mid-March, Mr. Ghanimat being represented
by an attorney of his choice.

51. In several
other cases, the Court issued interim injunctions forbidding the use
of physical pressure during GSS interrogations, which remained in
force throughout the investigation. See, e.g., HCJ 2210/96, Algazal
v. General Security Service (not yet published). Another petition,
which challenged the legality of the GSS interrogation guidelines
then in force and demanded that the secret portion of the Landau Commission
report be made public, was denied by the Court, inter alia
because it was not linked to the application of these guidelines in
the circumstances of a particular case (HCJ 2581/91, Salkhat et
al. v. State of Israel et al., 47(4) P.D. 837).

Treatment
of persons subjected to detention or imprisonment

52. The fundamental
right of detainees and prisoners to conditions ensuring basic maintenance
of their human dignity has been articulated and enforced in a long
line of judgements of the Israel Supreme Court. In Yusef v. Director
of Central Prison, for example, the Court held that "the order
of life in the prison by its nature requires an infringement of liberties
which a free person enjoys, but such infringement must derive from
the nature and needs of imprisonment, and not beyond that .... [t]he
purposes of criminal punishment may not be achieved through violation
of the prisoner's dignity or his humanity .... It is the right of
every person in Israel who is sentenced to imprisonment (or lawfully
detained) to be confined in conditions that allow for civilised human
life .... Only 'the most serious reasons', such as special security
measures that must be taken, may justify any deviation from this basic
approach." (HCJ 540-546/84, 40 (1) P.D. 567, 573, see also HCJ 114/86,
Weill v. State of Israel et al., 41 (3) P.D. 477 (minimal civilized
arrangements include the right to conjugal visits)).

53. Most
of the basic conditions granted to prisoners and detainees as a matter
of right, as well as limitations on measures that may impair their
liberty or dignity and procedures for adjudicating prisoners' complaints,
are provided for in legislation, primarily in the Prisons Ordinance
[New Version], 5732-1971, and regulations thereunder. Other privileges
or services have been given the status of a legal right by decisions
of the Supreme Court, such as the presence in the prison facility
of a social worker to deal with certain prisoner's concerns (Yusef
v. Director of Central Prison, supra). Still other privileges,
such as use of television and telephone, visits beyond the minimum
provided by law, purchase of goods from the prison canteen, or receipt
of newspapers and books, are granted as a matter of discretion by
the prison director; in practice, these latter privileges are routinely
granted.

Segregation
and solitary confinement

54. Under
section 21 (a) of the Prisons Regulations, 5738-1978, a senior prison
official may order that a prisoner be confined separately from the
rest of the prison population if he is convinced that doing so is
necessary for reasons of State security, for maintenance of security,
order or discipline in the prison, for protection of the safety or
health of the prisoner or other prisoners, or at the prisoner's own
request. This type of separate confinement is a preventive, not a
punitive measure, and is to be distinguished from solitary confinement,
which is discussed below.

55. Segregated
prisoners have all of the rights and privileges of ordinary prisoners,
except for conditions deriving by their nature from the fact of segregation.
Such prisoners remain in their cells during the day hours, except
for their daily excursion, family visits, medical care, visits with
legal counsel, parole officer, social worker and so on. They are always
accompanied by a warden whenever they are outside of their cell. Prisoners
convicted of a criminal offence who are held in segregation for more
than three months may be granted additional privileges and personal
effects (Part 14 of the Prison Commissioner's standing orders). The
term of segregation is for 48 hours when ordered by a senior prison
official; it may be extended for additional periods up to a total
of 14 days with the consent of the director of the prison. Thereafter,
separation may be extended only by order of the prison director, with
the consent of the Commissioner of Prisons, provided that the justification
for separation must be reviewed periodically (between 48 hours and
two months, depending on the type of case in question), or at earlier
intervals if the prisoner requests his separation. Any prisoner who
is confined separately for a period exceeding eight months may lodge
an appeal to the Commissioner of Prisons, who decides whether the
separation will continue or cease. Certain classes of prisoners or
detainees are segregated as a matter of law or policy from the rest
of the prison population, such as known drug addicts or persons under
administrative detention, and persons suspected or convicted of security-related
offences.

56. Solitary
confinement, on the other hand, is one of several punitive measures
that may be imposed on a prisoner for violation of the prison code
of conduct (section 56 of the Prisons Ordinance). Solitary confinement
may be imposed only by the director or deputy director of the prison.
As with all punitive measures, the decision to place a prisoner in
solitary confinement may not be taken except following an investigation
and a hearing at which the prisoner may hear the charges and evidence
against him, and may defend himself properly (section 60 of the Prisons
Ordinance). The maximum term of solitary confinement is 14 days, though
the prisoner may not serve more than seven days consecutively, and
must be given a break of at least seven days before solitary confinement
is resumed.

57. All decisions
regarding segregation and solitary confinement may be appealed directly
to the appropriate District Court, and the District Court's decision
may be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Contacts
with the outside world

58. Immediately
upon the arrest of any person, notification must be made to a relative
or other person close to the detainee regarding the fact of the arrest
and the place of detention.

59. Other
rights of incarcerated persons to maintain contacts with the outside
world vary according to the type of detention.

Visitation
rights

60. Prisoners
who have been convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence have
the right to receive visitors, apart from legal counsel, at least
once every two months, beginning after three months of imprisonment;
such visitation rights may be increased as a privilege for good behaviour
(section 47 (b) of the Prisons Ordinance). Persons who have been formally
charged with a criminal offence have the right to receive visitors
at least once a month (regulation 27A (b) of the Prison Regulations),
and are to be given "every reasonable opportunity" to have contact
with their friends and legal counsel (section 45 of the Prisons Ordinance).
Persons who have been detained for criminal investigation, and have
not yet been formally indicted, are not allowed visitors except with
the permission of the police official in charge of the investigation.

61. Administrative
detainees have a right to receive visits from immediate family members
every two weeks; more frequent visits, as well as visits by persons
other than immediate family and legal counsel, may be granted at the
discretion of the director of the prison. The total number of visitors
in any particular visit is limited to three persons in addition to
the detainee's spouse and children, unless the prison director permits
otherwise. The visitation rights of administrative detainees may be
restricted only for reasons of State security. If such visitation
rights are withheld for more than two months, the detainee may appeal
before the Minister of Defence. All restrictions on the visitation
rights of administrative detainees must be reviewed at least once
every two months, if not earlier at the request of the detainee (regulation
11 of the Emergency Powers (Detention) (Conditions of Confinement
in Administrative Detention) Regulations, 5741-1981). As with all
decisions affecting the detainee or imprisoned convict, restrictions
on visitation rights may be appealed before the District Court, and
thereafter to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Correspondence

62. Prisoners
who have been convicted and sentenced may write a first letter upon
entering the prison, and then may write and receive correspondence
freely after a period of three months. Detainees who have not been
formally indicted are granted the right to maintain correspondence
upon permission of the official in charge of the criminal investigation,
or according to a court order. All detainees and prisoners who have
the right to maintain correspondence are provided with writing paper,
and may be exempt from postal expenses if the director of the prison
decides that the prisoner's financial situation warrants such an exemption
(regulation 32 of the Prisons Regulations).

63. Administrative
detainees have the right to receive mail, and may normally send four
letters and four postcards per month, not including correspondence
with legal counsel or with official authorities (regulation 14 of
the Emergency Powers (Detention) (Conditions of Confinement in Administrative
Detention) Regulations, 5741-1981), or more with the permission of
the prison director. The right of administrative detainees to send
and receive mail may be restricted by the prison director if he is
convinced that doing so is necessary for reasons of State security;
in such circumstances, the prison director does not have to notify
the detainee that a letter written by or to him has not been forwarded,
except in the case of letters to or from family members (Id.).

Telephone

64. Until
recently, the use of a telephone by prisoners and detainees was not
granted by law, although it is routinely granted in practice. Under
the recently enacted Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers - Arrest
and Detention) Law, 5756-1996, detainees are specifically granted
the right to use a telephone. Under both the current law and the previous
regime, detainees who have not been formally indicted may have use
of the telephone if the official in charge of the criminal investigation
decides that such use will not impair a criminal investigation being
undertaken at that time.

Furloughs

65. Detainees
who have not yet been convicted and sentenced are not granted furloughs
except by court order or by special permission in extenuating circumstances.
While the right of convicted and sentenced prisoners to furloughs
is not provided for in primary legislation, furloughs are granted
according to the provisions of Prisons Commission standing order 12.05.01
of 1 December 1992, which has the status of law (section 80C (a) of
the Prisons Ordinance). Such prisoners are categorized, within 30
days of their incarceration, into one of three groups for the purpose
of determining their rights to furloughs: those who may not be granted
furloughs except by permission of the Minister of Internal Security,
either because their leaving the prison may pose a danger to public
order and security, or due to an outstanding arrest warrant, or those
who are detained by virtue of an extradition or deportation order;
those who may be given furloughs according to conditions determined
by the Israel Police; and those who may be granted furloughs with
no such conditions. In general, prisoners have the right to furloughs
after having completed one quarter of their sentence, or three years,
whichever is earlier. Prisoners who are sentenced to life imprisonment
may be granted furloughs only after their sentence is commuted to
a specific period by the President of the State.

66. The length
of the furlough is between 36 and 96 hours, and the frequency varies
between once every three months and once a week (from Friday afternoon
to Sunday morning), depending on the type of offence which the prisoner
committed, his behaviour record in the prison, the type of rehabilitation
programme in which the prisoner is participating, and other considerations.
The interval between furloughs may be shortened in order to enable
the prisoner to observe religious holidays outside of prison, or for
family or medical reasons.

67. In addition,
furloughs may be granted even though the prisoner has not completed
the minimum portion of his sentence noted above, or even if the interval
between furloughs has not transpired, in special circumstances, such
as births, marriages or deaths in the family, memorial services, vocational
testing, preparation of a rehabilitation programme, or medical reasons.

68. Persons
imprisoned in the context of civil proceedings may be granted furloughs
of 48 hours after having completed one quarter of their term of imprisonment
or three months, whichever is earlier, and additional furloughs of
48 hours once every three months thereafter. If the term of civil
imprisonment is four months or less, then the prisoner may be granted
a furlough after having completed half of his sentence.

Conjugal
visits

69. Under
standing orders now in force, conjugal visits are allowed only for
criminal prisoners who are serving long sentences and are not eligible
for furloughs. The Prisons Service and the Ministry of Internal Security
are currently investigating the possibility of extending this privilege
to all persons incarcerated for criminal offences who are not granted
furloughs.

Articles 12 and 13 - Procedures for complaints and disciplinary
and criminal proceedings

70. The actions
of law enforcement officials are subject to several overlapping legal
institutions for review and sanctions. In general, each arm of the
law enforcement authorities has disciplinary procedures, which may
be initiated by the person claiming a violation, by other entities,
or by the authorities themselves; all public servants are subject
to the provisions of the criminal law; and detainees or prisoners
may apply directly to the courts for relief against the action or
decision in question.

Israel
Police

71. Disciplinary
proceedings are initiated by submission of a complaint to the disciplinary
department of the Personnel Division at Central Headquarters or to
one of its several branch offices. The Police may initiate disciplinary
proceedings when it becomes aware of violations from other sources
(e.g. statements of witnesses in the course of investigations or information
forwarded by police personnel). In addition, the Department for Investigation
of Police Personnel (DIPP) in the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible
for most criminal investigations against police officers, transfers
files to the Disciplinary Department of the Police both when the actions
complained of fall short of a criminal offence but constitute a prima
facie disciplinary violation, and also when criminal proceedings are
brought against a police officer for actions which may entail parallel
disciplinary sanctions.

72. If the
Disciplinary Department, upon investigating the incident, finds that
there is sufficient evidence of an infraction, then the matter is
referred to a disciplinary tribunal, composed of either a single judge
or a three-judge panel, depending on the gravity of the violation.
(See generally Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Regulations, 5749-1989;
Police (Definition of Disciplinary Offences) Regulations, 5715-1955;
Police Ordinance (New Version), 5731-1971, chapter 5.)

73. Alongside
the disciplinary sanctions that may be imposed by a tribunal or single
judge, the Police is bound to consider administrative sanctions against
an officer who violates the law or internal standing orders. Administrative
sanctions may be imposed at any time during the disciplinary or criminal
proceedings, as well as after they are concluded. Such sanctions include
dismissal from the police force, suspension, transfer to another position
or department, demotion, postponement of promotion, and probation.

74. In 1992,
a special department was set up at the Ministry of Justice -the Department
for Investigation of Police Personnel (DIPP) - to investigate allegations
of criminal conduct by police generally. Criminal investigations against
police officers may be initiated by a complaint filed with the DIPP
by the victim or his representative, by the DIPP itself as a result
of information submitted to it by independent human rights groups
or by entities within the Israel Police. A preliminary screening is
carried out by a DIPP staff lawyer, who decides either to open an
investigation or to close the file if the acts accused of do not give
rise to a criminal offence (in the latter case the file may be transferred
back to the Police for appropriate disciplinary measures). In the
course of investigation, the DIPP staff takes testimony from the complainant,
the suspect and other witnesses, as well as any other evidence relevant
to the case. If the investigation indicates sufficient evidence of
a criminal offence, then the file is transferred to the District Attorney's
Office in the region where the offence occurred, or, in cases of unlawful
use of force, to the State Attorney's Office, for a final decision
as to whether to file criminal charges against the police officer.
Under current guidelines, all criminal trials against police officers
are prosecuted by the District Attorney's office. The DIPP may also
decide that the police officer should stand trial in disciplinary
proceedings for the unlawful use of force, in lieu of criminal proceedings.

75. Following
are statistics compiled by the Israel Police and the DIPP regarding
treatment of disciplinary and criminal complaints, respectively.

Recommendation to weigh disciplinary sanctions (total
number of officers involved)

41

(64)

168

(246)

79

(93)

307

(388)

50

(92)

127

(180)

47

(55)

366

(459)

76. Between
1992 and July 1996, DIPP investigated 211 cases involving the use
of firearms, and 25 cases involving the use of force, or threat of
using force, in order to extract a confession. In 1993, 15 officers
were tried in criminal proceedings for involvement in offences amounting
to assault; 12 of these officers were convicted, and 3 were acquitted.
In 1994, 10 officers were convicted of such offences in criminal proceedings.
In one noteworthy case, 5 police investigators in the Minorities Division
of the Jerusalem Region were convicted in July 1995 for unlawful use
of force in investigating suspects (Cr.F. 576/91, in the Jerusalem
District Court). In September 1995 the defendants were sentenced to
varying terms of imprisonment. The case is currently on appeal in
the Supreme Court.

77. In 1994,
22 police officers were dismissed from the force, 2 of whom as a result
of their involvement in violent offences (down from 18 dismissals
as a result of violent offences in 1993); 13 others were dismissed
for "unsuitability", which includes those who were involved
in repeated incidents of unlawful use of force (in 1993, as a result
of a special effort by the Police to remove the most problematic employees,
30 officers were dismissed for unsuitability). In 1995, 29 officers
were similarly dismissed for unsuitability, and no officers were dismissed
in 1995 as a result of violent offences.

78. One officer
was suspended in 1994 (out of a total of 20 suspensions that year)
and 8 in 1995, as a result of involvement in violent offences; in
1993, no such suspensions were made.

79. Alongside
the ordinary criminal and disciplinary processes described above,
detainees held in police lock-ups have the right to file for habeas
corpus relief against any unlawful treatment, including torture or
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on the part of police
officers.

Prisons
Service

80. Currently,
the disciplinary and criminal investigation procedures regarding Prisons
Service personnel differs from those followed with regard to police
officers. Any prisoner or detainee under the care of the Prisons Service
may file a complaint regarding ill-treatment or conditions of detention
to the director of the prison. In cases involving use of force, a
special committee within the Prisons Service investigates the complaint
and transfers the file to the Attorney-General, who decides whether
to institute disciplinary or criminal proceedings. Disciplinary trials
are held before a tribunal within the Prisons Service, which is similar
in structure and procedures to that of the Israel Police (see generally
the Prisons Ordinance, sect. 101 et seq. and second schedule
defining disciplinary offences; and the Prisons (Disciplinary Procedures)
Regulations, 5749-1989), while criminal files are transferred first
to the Israel Police, for completion of the investigation, and then
to the appropriate District Attorney's office for filing a charge
sheet.

General
Security Service

81. Complaints
by persons detained by the General Security Service regarding their
treatment during investigation may be filed by the detainee or his
or her legal representative, by local or international human rights
organizations (complaints have been filed by the Public Committee
Against Torture in Israel, the Physicians' Association for Human Rights,
Amnesty International and the ICRC, among others). All complaints
are examined by a complaints review unit within the GSS, which is
subordinate to the State Attorney's Office. In the event that complaints
are submitted to other governmental authorities, they are transferred
to the above complaints unit, which is solely responsible for the
initial investigation. Complaints that give rise to a suspicion that
a criminal offence was committed are transferred to DIPP at the Ministry
of Justice.

82. In 1995,
81 such complaints were received regarding treatment of detainees
during GSS investigations. Thirty-four of these complaints were filed
by the detainee, 23 by the detainee's legal counsel, 9 by local organizations
and 15 by international organizations. In some instances, several
entities filed complaints regarding a particular case. In four cases
during 1995, the complaints unit found deviations from lawful authority;
these cases were dealt with administratively within the GSS, including
sanctions against the persons involved. In one case, that of Samed
abd al Harizat, a GSS investigator was tried in disciplinary proceedings
before a special tribunal.

83. Detainees
in the custody of GSS also have the right to petition the High Court
of Justice directly for habeas corpus relief.

General
Security Service Comptroller

84. Initially,
the GSS Comptroller was instructed to examine all claims of torture
or maltreatment during interrogation. From 1987 until 1994, the Comptroller
carried out this review function, initiating disciplinary or legal
action against interrogators in cases where they have been found to
have deviated from the legal guidelines.

Department
for Investigation of Police Personnel

85. In 1994,
in accordance with the recommendations of the Landau Commission that
there be external oversight of General Security Service activities,
responsibility for claims of maltreatment by GSS interrogators was
also transferred to DIPP, described above, under the direct supervision
of the State Attorney. The activity of DIPP appears to have had a
significant deterrent impact on the incidence of intentional physical
abuse of detainees and citizens by law enforcement officials, including
GSS interrogators. Statistical information regarding the performance
of the DIPP appears above.

Israel
Defence Forces

86. The IDF
maintains a strict policy of investigating every claim of mistreatment
of detainees by IDF investigators. Soldiers who are found to have
deviated from IDF standing orders forbidding violence or the threat
of violence in interrogations are either court-martialled or have
disciplinary proceedings brought against them, depending on the severity
of the charges. In 1991, IDF also appointed a commission to review
its interrogation practices and policies, headed by Major General
(Reserve) Raphael Vardi, which resulted in the punishment of several
interrogators. The Vardi Commission also submitted a list of recommendations
designed to reduce the possibility of mistreatment by IDF investigators,
which have been adopted.

Article 14 - Compensation to victims

87. Persons
who have been subjected to torture or to any other unlawful mistreatment
may, in addition to criminal, disciplinary or habeas corpus proceedings,
initiate a tort action for damages against the perpetrators and against
the State. In cases of assault, the State, like any private employer,
is immune from liability unless it is found to have approved the unlawful
assault or to have retroactively ratified it.

88. In addition,
victims may receive a certain degree of compensation in the context
of criminal proceedings under section 77 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977,
which empowers a convicting court to order the payment to the victim
of a crime for damages or suffering. Such compensation is recovered
in the same manner as a fine. Currently, the maximum amount payable
to a particular victim is fixed at NIS 60,000 (about US$ 17,000).

Article 15 - Rules of evidence

Goldberg
Committee

89. In 1993,
the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police appointed a public
committee, headed by Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Goldberg, to examine
the efficacy of convictions based solely or almost solely upon the
defendant's confession, the availability of retrial, and other topics
related to the rights of those investigated by the police. The Goldberg
Committee's report, published in 1994, included recommendations aimed
at ensuring that false confessions were not extracted by illegal means.
Among other things, the Committee recommended employment of investigation
techniques and technologies which have been developed elsewhere, and
which have proven effective in fulfilling the purposes of the criminal
investigation without resort to violence; increasing supervision of
investigation by senior investigators; videotaping of any interview
at which the interviewee's lawyer is not present; and giving the judge
who presides over detention hearings more of a role in actively investigating
the conditions of detention and the investigation.

90. An amendment
to the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 1971 is currently being prepared
at the Ministry of Justice to implement the above recommendations
of the Goldberg Committee.

91. The draft
law stipulates that the statement of a defendant given outside the
court shall not be admissible as evidence if it was given pursuant
to inhuman treatment, real violence, physical torture, mental torture,
severe humiliation, or as a result of the threat of any of the above
to the defendant. However, independent evidence of guilt that was
discovered by an inadmissible confession will still be admissible.